« TWO PROMINENT LIBERAL BLOGGERS CALL ON FRANKEN TO END CAMPAIGN | Home | FRANKEN’S GRAPHIC PLAYBOY COLUMN HITS STAR TRIBUNE »
PRESS RELEASE: “CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN RON NEHRING WRITES LETTER URGING CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG TO INVESTIGATE OPERATIONS OF AL FRANKEN, INC. IN CALIFORNIA”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 20, 2008
SACRAMENTO – On the heels of revelations that the business of Al Franken, candidate for US Senate in Minnesota, has been operating illegally in 17 states, including California, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring called on California State Controller John Chiang to investigate the California operations of Al Franken, Inc.
In a letter delivered last week to the State Controller’s office, Chairman Nehring urged Controller Chiang to fully investigate the operations of Al Franken, Inc. in the state of California since 1991 or the earliest known date of its business dealings in the state. The text of the letter is as follows:
May 15, 2008
The Honorable John Chiang
Controller, State of California
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1850
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Controller Chiang:
It has come to my attention that Alan Franken, Inc., a New York based corporation, has potentially been operating illegally in 17 states, including California, by not filing corporate income tax returns or paying legally obligated taxes.
Given the present challenges facing our state budget and the struggle to ensure funding for the critical services provided to the people of California, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that every individual and corporation lives up to its legal obligations to report its income, and pay its fair share of taxes.
Franken has publicly stated that he would go back to 1991 in a review of his records; we would also request that a full and complete review of the California operations of Alan Franken, Inc. be conducted by the California Franchise Tax Board since 1991 when the company was first formed in the State of New York, or the earliest known date of the corporations business dealings in our state.
Sincerely,
Ron Nehring
Chairman
California Republican Party
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 32 Comments »
32 Responses to “PRESS RELEASE: “CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN RON NEHRING WRITES LETTER URGING CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG TO INVESTIGATE OPERATIONS OF AL FRANKEN, INC. IN CALIFORNIA””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:05 PM
The California Republican party chair sounds like as much of a clown as Carey/Brodkorb.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:18 PM
WOW!!!
You really think they’ll DO that??!?
May 20th, 2008 at 4:48 PM
We won’t have angry Al to kick around much longer. Is he the best they have?
May 20th, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Yeah, if Nehring has cried wolf half as many times as Ron Carey, I have a sinking suspicion this thing ain’t going anywhere.
And even if Nehring is normal, I think Chiang may not be all that inclined to waste time on this request. I don’t know. Something about this press release makes me think that…
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3606
May 20th, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Ya know, Leroy – republiCons think the darndest things.
You know, like how republiCons think they don’t have to answer subpoenas issued by congress, but state Controllers will get involved in witch-hunts called by republiCon Chairs.
Why do you suppose they think that way?
May 20th, 2008 at 8:27 PM
……….Preliminary & pragmatic?……..
The Honorable John Chiang
Controller, State of California
300 Capital Mall, Suite 1850
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Chiang,
Approximately, how much would would a full and complete review cost the State of California?
Approximately, cost effective would this full and complete review be?
———————————————–
[Mr. Chiang, endorsed candidate Senator Hillary Clinton for USA President about last October 2007.]
May 20th, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Approximately, how cost effective would this full and complete review be?
May 21st, 2008 at 7:47 AM
“You know, like how republiCons think they don’t have to answer subpoenas issued by congress, but state Controllers will get involved in witch-hunts called by republiCon Chairs.”
Tommy, are you suggesting that Constitution wrong when it separates Executive and Legislative powers? Maybe the Executive Branch should start issuing subpoenas for records from every meeting Nancy Pelosi has held.
Are you also suggesting that the State of California not investigate corporations for tax fraud and evasion? I’m sure the thousands of corporations who do business there would appreciate the freedom of less regulation, but I don’t suspect you really mean that.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Chestnut, I’m not only suggesting, I am adamant that the current Bush Administration has blatant disregard for the separation of powers, and the GOP controlled House and Senate allowed it to happen.
And it scares me. If the republican Bush Administration ignores congressional subpoenas, what is to stop the democratic Obama or Clinton administration from doing the same, and using Bush as precedent? Same goes for Signing Statements, etc etc etc.
And you are correct; I firmly believe in regulation and enforcement. Clearly, traffic laws are obeyed when drivers know they are likely to get a ticket for violating the law. Clearly, cops on the street deter street crime. Clearly, enforcement of banking regulations increases compliance.
But, seriously – if the state of California actually opens a case on Franken over this “throw crap on the wall and see if it sticks” attack, the ol’ TwoPutter might be visitin’ California, too.
Shoot – I might do it anyway, just to point out the absurdity of republiCon Ron’s hypocritic Swiftboating of Franken.
Besides – I hear they got nice golf courses there…..
May 21st, 2008 at 8:30 AM
“I am adamant that the current Bush Administration has blatant disregard for the separation of powers, and the GOP controlled House and Senate allowed it to happen.”
This doesn’t make any sense. You want the Administration to cow-tow to Democrats violation of separation of powers, then you blame Bush?
Get your opinions (and your facts) straight.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:32 AM
“And it scares me. If the republican Bush Administration ignores congressional subpoenas, what is to stop the democratic Obama or Clinton administration from doing the same, and using Bush as precedent? Same goes for Signing Statements, etc etc etc.”
The Bush administration has an obligation to ignore illegal subpoenas. Executive privilege is a privilege that belongs to whoever runs the office. And he’s hardly alone in using signing statements.
Spare me your outrage.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:33 AM
“Swiftboating” … yeah, I love it when Democrats get “swiftboated”. It means that the truth is being told about their lies and deceit.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Big flippin’ deal. Even I think this smells of partisan hackery. The Republican Chair is asking for an investigation of a Dem candidate from another state that is running in yet another state. Are we just digging for more dirt or is there something to this? Are we down to taking strategies from the Clinton political machine now? Worst case is what; he made a paid appearance in California in the last four years that he didn’t report? No matter what it will just be another oversight by another AFI accountant; again, and again, and again.
We already know, for proven fact, that Al and/or AF Inc. is crooked or incompetent or both. So why waste time whipping this dead horse. How about spending more time telling everyone what kind of socialist government this ass-clown is all about.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:55 AM
“You want the Administration to cow-tow to Democrats violation of separation of powers, “
So, let me get this straight – you consider a subpoena from Congress to the Executive, a Consitiutional violation of the separation of powers?
Is that what you really think?
May 21st, 2008 at 8:58 AM
“The Bush administration has an obligation to ignore illegal subpoenas.”
Here’s where we differ – I think if the Bush Administration – ANY administration – feels a subpoena is “illegal”, it has the duty to prove it’s case in court.
But, you seem to think the Executive Branch – ANY Executive Branch – has the authority to unilaterally decide what is legal ana/or illegal?
Is that what you’re claiming?
May 21st, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Say, ManGenius? They want to keep beating this dead-horse, because the last thing they want is a discussion of ol’ Smokescreen’s record that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Coleman is, at best, a RINO.
That’s the beauty of this race, for us in the DFL – no matter who wins, a Democrat will be elected.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:02 AM
“You consider a subpoena from Congress to the Executive, a Consitiutional violation of the separation of powers?”
Yes, because it is. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s a textbook example of separation of powers.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Clown?
While the self-righteous anti-clown groups are up to their necks writing about in bestiality fiction, Christine Hefner fund raisers, and other details, US News & World Report this week published a two-pager on Al Franken.
Norm Coleman was mentioned, and a photo of Norm appeared on the second (2nd) page [not the first page] of the article, and not on the title of the front cover [at least in Minnesota].
I believe that Chris Truscott covered is share of Michele Bachmann stories. It ain’t over ’til its over.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:16 AM
“Here’s where we differ”
Actually, I think we differ in a number of other places… but anyway…
“I think if the Bush Administration – ANY administration – feels a subpoena is “illegalâ€, it has the duty to prove it’s case in court.”
No, that’s not how the law works, and you know it. If the Legislative branch wants information, they can ask. But the Executive has the right to retain information under “executive privilege.” If the Legislative disagrees, then it needs to take their case to the Supreme Court, who will serve as the final arbiter of what is privileged and what is not… and until then, the Legislative branch is entitled to nothing. That’s how separation of powers works.
“But, you seem to think the Executive Branch – ANY Executive Branch – has the authority to unilaterally decide what is legal and/or illegal?”
No, they have the authority to decide what is and what is not privileged. The same goes for Legislators if the Executive Branch subpoena’s their documents. Remember the case of the Louisiana Democrat who kept $10,000 in bribes in his freezer? The FBI was issued a warrant to search his congressional office. There was a legal tussle about whether that was an unconstitutional search because of the same separation of powers. The FBI works for the Executive Branch.
So in other words, if Democrats in Congress want to take their case to the Supreme Court, they can. But so far, they haven’t… which to me signals the entire illegal subpoena was more about politics than truth seeking. … go figure.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:18 AM
O.k., so now that I’ve taken apart another of Tommy’s comments, I suspect he’ll start calling me names.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:23 AM
In any case, it’s not the obligation of any president to defend why the information is privileged, it’s the obligation of the Legislative — the plaintiff — to prove why it is not.
Same thing in criminal and civil law… the obligation is on the plaintiff to prove that the actions of the defendant require a remedy.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Chestnut, you are correct about which branch has the duty to initiate a court case – which necessitates an admission of error on my part.
A quick brush up leads me to the understanding that using the courts to force testimony results in partial to full immunity for said testimony.
Therefore, your conclusion that the courts have not been used because there is nothing there, could be countered by the supposition that the courts haven’t been used and the subjects of the subpoenas haven’t been forced to appear because at this point, prosecution is still being considered.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Chestnut, you dismantled it without calling me names; why would I initiate uncivil discussion?
Hey – ya beat me fair ‘n square; I’m a big boy and can admit it.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Now that the separation of powers is finally explained to all y’all who still don’t understand the Constitution as written, let’s address the subject of so-called “Swiftboating” which seems to be used as a general term of opprobrium by people who (a) don’t know what in the hell it means and (b) don’t know that it’s completely inappropriate in any context.
So-called “Swiftboating” is a term that came into usage during John Kerry’s failed presidential bid in 2004 when some of his fellow Swift Boat sailors gathered together to dispute the FACTS of his stories about his 16 weeks of service in Vietnam. And while the MSM and the Democrats have loudly proclaimed that these public-spirited citizens were discredited, in fact, they were NOT. I guess their attitude is that if you spout a falsehood loudly enough and often enough, it will become true! Not so, my friend.
In point of fact, most of their charges against John Kerry were absolutely true and demonstrably so. In other words, John Kerry is a lying horse’s derriere. For example, he claimed to spend Christmas in Cambodia on the orders of Richard Nixon. Problem is: Lyndon Baines Johnson was still POTUS. So not only is Kerry a liar, he’s a clumsy liar.
You are only innocent until proven guilty in CRIMINAL courts. All other courts it is required that the plaintiff PROVE injury. Simple deduction – the Dems in Congress chose to pursue asinine claims against the President of the United States instead of actually governing our nation which they were elected to do! Hence their current 23% approval rating. If I had an employee who performed that poorly (and they ARE our employees), he/she would be unemployed in a heartbeat! So why do we keep re-electing these clowns? That’s the real question. Only when we begin to demand accountability from all public servants will we begin to get the representation we want.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Say, Gayle?
Do you perhaps know which of those so-called Swiftboat Veterans actually served with Kerry, as in on the same boat? As in on boats within visual sight of Kerry’s boat?
Do you know about Bobby Eberle, and how the Swifboat attack group was formed?
And FYI – swiftboating is now recognized as a smear campaign, which the campaign against Kerry most certainly was.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:09 AM
‘Scuse me – Bob Perry.
Bobby Eberle was the guy behind Jeff Gannon/Guckert.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:15 AM
And a new day of civility hath dawned on MDE!
“… could be countered by the supposition that the courts haven’t been used and the subjects of the subpoenas haven’t been forced to appear because at this point, prosecution is still being considered.”
Fair enough. But if you’re talking about the subpoena’s related to the firing of a few Attorney’s General, then we’re talking about an subpoena’s related to an issue where the Legislative branch has no purview anyway.
Bill Clinton fired 100 percent of the A.G.’s Why are these 9 — who weren’t doing there jobs very well — so important? Answer: Because it generates headlines… nothing more.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Swift Boats may have rubbed Kerry, but it wasn’t all smear. There’s a reason why he still has refused to sign the order making his full record available.
Still, I could care less about the lies he told about his service in Vietnam (he told a few, but some of what he said he did was true.) I cared more about what a fucking phony Kerry was once he got home, and the lies and slander, and (probably) treason he committed after the war.
One also has to wonder why he received so many different versions of his discharge papers… I believe the last discharge from the Navy he received was in the mid-1990s. What’s up with that?
Just saying that Kerry’s war record was probably the last thing that should have been a cornerstone of his campaign. When you bring forward 1 “brother in arms” to support you, while there are 250+ who oppose you, including every commanding officer you reported to, and almost everyone who served with or for you… well, let’s just say it’s probably better to run on your record as someone who marries well.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Nixon was President from 1969 – 1974.
Kerry was in the Navy from 1966 – 1970. He was in Cam Rahn Bay, Nov of 1968.
There were military personnel going across the Cambodian border.
[It is easier if one actually sees it.]
Nixon followed Johnson as President of the United States (POTUS).
The only time that I’ve seen the rockets’ RED glare is with tracers, smoke, etc.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:37 AM
“I cared more about what a fucking phony Kerry was once he got home, and the lies and slander, and (probably) treason he committed after the war.”
EXACTLY!!!
It’s like the snopes.com deal on Fonda; where they say she done did enough to earn her just rewards that stuff dosn’t need to be made up!
The problem I have with sayin’ that Kerry could game the system for his awards, is that it casts doubt on EVERY award EVER issued – like Col. Kline’s.
And it would simply be wrong to question Kline’s awards – as it is wrong to question Kerry’s awards.
Now, for instance, ya wanna rip him for throwin’ the medals – no, wait, “ribbons” – wait, medals, over the wall?
Knock yerself out. Ya won’t see me complainin’.
But don’t rip Kerry for his service. It’s bad enough those that served got spit on all those years ago; those that served shouldn’t have to go through that crap again.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:45 AM
“Now, for instance, ya wanna rip him for throwin’ the medals – no, wait, “ribbons†– wait, medals, over the wall?”
They were his medals, no they were ribbons, no they were someone else’s medals and ribbons, no they were his, no they weren’t his…
EXACTLY…
And why was it his medals had to be re-issued… in 1985… shortly after he became a Senator… why were they revoked in the first place?
I never knocked his service. Like you said, there are enough solid reasons to knock that phony jerk, without making stuff up… or twiddling bits over whether he got a purple heart for a sliver and what not… that crap distracted from the meat.
May 24th, 2008 at 6:08 AM
John Kerry called a meeting of Veterans for Peace and they threw the SWIFT BOATS OVER THE WALL.